Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was one I've already discussed about the presidential election poll numbers. I'll skip that one and start with a thread titled, "I’m breadwinner, dh asked me to help with side hustle", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster and her husband are both attorneys. However, the original poster's husband lost his job several years ago and, while he currently works full time, he is severely underemployed. For these many years, the original poster has been the family's breadwinner, earning almost twice as much as her husband. However, during that time the original poster has also acted as the default parent, dealing with the bulk of the parenting tasks. This has understandably stretched her pretty thin and, in a moment of having too much to do and not enough time to do it, she lost patience with her husband. The original poster revealed her resentment about not having a full partner and feeling like the only adult in the home. A week after this, the original poster's husband approached her about a side gig opportunity in which he is interested. However, he said that because he is not very organized, he would like the original poster to participate and handle the organizing. The original poster lost her patience, not believing that after describing how she is overwhelmed her husband would approach her with the idea of adding more work to her plate. The original poster wants to know who is right or wrong in this issue. What is going on here seems pretty clear to me. Early in their relationship, the original poster's husband out-earned her. That justified to both of them that the original poster should undertake the responsibilities of the default parent. In a better world, they would have shared responsibilities more evenly even then. But many families don't live in such a better world and the original poster's situation is not unusual. Problems began when the couple's salary disparity reversed but their responsibilities didn't. Not only does the original poster's husband show no interest in correcting the current imbalance, but he actually wants to make things worse. No wonder the original poster is resentful. As clear as this seems to me, the vast majority of the responses in this thread are really disappointing. A good portion of the responses appear to be from women who may well be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. They argue that the original poster and her husband should be a team and that the original poster should support her husband with his new venture. This ignores that the couple has not hitherto acted as a team and that the original poster's husband's concept of a team is him as captain and the original poster as team manager. Another large portion of the responses are from misogynist males who believe that it is unquestionably the original poster's duty to attend to parenting tasks and that she should fully support her husband by helping with his new business. Intermixed are a number of responses from posters who are trying to be helpful by suggesting strategies for the original poster to deal with her husband. Many of these seem to infantilize the man, something that I don't think is either required or appropriate. Eventually the thread more or less turned into a battle between wives who do everything and like it and those who want equal partnerships.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and titled, "Tulsi Gabbard endorses Trump. Will join campaign". Tulsi Gabbard is a former U.S. Representative from Hawaii who has also served as the Vice Chairman of the National Democratic Committee. She was originally identified with Bernie Sanders and other progressives, particularly sharing their anti-war sentiments. However, toward the end of her Congressional career, Gabbard became somewhat erratic in both her views and behavior. Becoming a strong critic of mainstream Democratic politicians, Gabbard moved toward the right, embracing many right-wing criticisms of Democrats. Eventually, in 2022, Gabbard left the Democratic Party, complaining that it was too "woke". Shortly after that, Gabbard began endorsing candidates backed by former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and was signed as a paid contributor by Fox News. Earlier this month Gabbard began assisting Trump in his debate preparations. This thread was started after Gabbard formally endorsed Trump. Given that Gabbard was already assisting Trump's campaign, this endorsement should not have surprised anyone. To paraphrase a poster that I quoted when I discussed Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s endorsement of Trump, the Trump campaign is rapidly turning into an Axis of Weirdos. With the 34 time, sexual harasser Trump at the head, surrounded by Ohio Senator J. D. Vance whose main obsession appears to be the fertility of women, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., best known for opposing vaccines, stashing a dead bear cub in Central Park, and being inflicted with brainworms, and now Gabbard who transitioned from a Bernie Sanders-style Democrat to a Ron DeSantis-style Republican and now going full MAGA. Trump fans praise this as the most anti-establishment collection of politicians that you could imagine, which may be true but is not necessarily a good thing. Charismatic and intelligent-sounding critics can often be appealing, especially to those who are dissatisfied with the status quo. But whether such individuals have the necessary skills to govern if or when they get into power is another question. Trump himself has shown very little finesse or talent when it comes to governing. There is little evidence that either Kennedy or Gabbard would do anything but destroy any government entity for which they were given responsibility. This is a group that will excel at soundbites and tweets, but which doesn't belong anywhere close to the levers of government. Trump's political strategy has always been to motivate his base, hoping that a narrow but deep slice of the electorate would be enough to win an election. Surrounding himself with the likes of Vance, Kennedy, and Gabbard will energize some Trump supporters. How this group, dubbed a "clown car" by some posters, will play more broadly remains to be seen.

Next was a thread titled, "Where do you draw the line between upper middle class and upper class?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster is concerned about boundaries between the middle class, upper middle class, and wealthy. She proposes a number of percentage-based boundaries and asks what others think. Right off the bat a poster responded with a link to an article discussing incomes of various classes by state. That determined that in the DC/VA/MD area, middle class ended at the upper limit of roughly $200,000. However, that seems very low to me. Other posters used different metrics to determine class lines. One popular rule is that the wealthy do not need to work in order to maintain their lifestyles. They survive on interest and dividends. Others make the determination based on the job. Company presidents are considered wealthy and executives below them upper middle class. For many, this is a relative determination based off their own circumstances. As one poster, with tongue firmly in cheek, puts it, "Upper class is richer than me. Lower class is poorer than me." The general affluence of DCUM users distorts things quite a bit. DCUM is famous for posters complaining that $250,000 per year is barely enough with which to scrape by. I had to laugh at a poster who lives in New York City and said that while they own their home, their second home, and pay for private school, they don't live an upper class lifestyle. That poster went on to make an absolutely correct observation that there is a big difference between a family with an income of $1 million versus those with $10 or $100 million. Almost all of the class divisions discussed in this thread ignore the vast wealth inequity that characterizes our society. For instance, Jeff Bezos is estimated to earn roughly $142,667 per minute based on growth of his net worth. That is the equivalent of an annual middle class income every minute. Is it really worth contesting lines between lower, middle, and upper classes in a world in which such wealth gaps exist? Also, as some posters point out, there are vast differences between what class someone's income may put them and how they feel. Many posters have household incomes of nearly half a million dollars a year, but they feel poor. They are unable to save and claim that they don't spend extravagantly. I have no idea where their money is going, but I'm sure a family existing on less than 20% of that would like to discuss what being poor feels like. I think the poster who came closest to the truth is one who argued that those in the 1-99% ranges of income were the middle class. Below that is the truly poor and above that the upper class. Within the 98% that makes up the middle class, there are arbitrary and ultimately meaningless divisions.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Forbes 2025 ranking is out", the original poster links to Forbes' latest ranking of colleges and universities and says that Forbes' ranking has always been "wonky". As might be expected from a publication that is focused on business, Forbes approaches university education as if it is an investment. The publication prioritizes salaries of graduates, debt caused by educational expenses, and return on investment. The universities that top the list are not surprises with Princeton University in first place followed by Stanford University. One surprise for me was Rice University which is ranked 9th. DCUM posters in the college forum love ranking lists. More specifically, they love criticizing ranking lists. As such, poster after poster takes issue with the rankings of various schools. "Duke at 20 way too low", says one poster. "Carnegie Mellon is below Cal Poly SLO. In what world is that accurate?", asks another. But some posters are pleased where their favorite schools are ranked. One poster exclaims, "UMD 41...$uck it ND (42), UT (46), NYU (49), Wisconsin (50) and BC (59)!" Contrary to most ranking lists, this one receives quite a bit of praise with a number of posters thinking that it is roughly accurate. Generally, in my experience, lists of this sort are either criticized or praised based on how well they align with readers' preconceived notions. Any legitimate list must have clear metrics by which to rank colleges and Forbes' metrics seem to align with those of many DCUM posters. US News and World Report, on the other hand, revised its metrics last year to include a number of items that DCUM posters tend to not only not prioritize, but downright despise. Therefore, many posters compare the Forbes list favorably with regard to the US News rankings. One thing that is not clear to me is whether Forbes uses in-state or out-of-state tuition rates for public universities. That could have a significant impact on the return of investment calculations for those schools. In addition to the good showing by the University of Maryland, the University of Virginia was also highly ranked at 34. With UMD at 41, this will do nothing to eliminate the forum rivalry between supporters of those schools.